wgstrand, I'm not conspiratorially minded, nor do I believe my responses are predictable as you so deem.
I can not find any genuine scientific evidence from any independent (and I stress independent) scientific research organisation or international weather bureau that convinces me that anything out of the ordinary is happening to our planet so I do not believe that anything out of the ordinary *is* happening. What I have found is plenty of hearsay, rumour and theory and I believe politicians are using and manipulating this in order to further their own interests.
Please, by all means, point me in the direction of some independent factual data, some hard, real evidence, backed up by references from scientific institutions or weather data collections and I'll weigh up that evidence.
Please don't point me to research biased by funding or political interests.
You never know, I might even change my mind.

Unfortunately for Willis and the other McIntyre acolytes, the only plaudit the proprietor of climatefraudit received from the report was "some of these criticisms show a rather selective and uncharitable approach to information made available by CRU."

The conspiratorially-minded "skeptics" will not be persuaded by any investigation (no matter that any investigation of CRU is based on nothing more than innuendo, character assassinations and cheap smears by many of the same "skeptics") so their responses are quite predictable.

More and more, the "skeptics" of manmade global warming are having the same credibility and believability issues as the 9/11 "Truth Movement" folks. Indeed, taking the "skeptics" on their word that the whole thing is a "hoax" or "fraud" implies a conspiracy of a breadth and depth that makes believing that 9/11 was an inside job positively trivial. Honestly, such a conspiracy would involve tens of thousands of individuals scattered over the globe and spanning decades, if not centuries.

In summary, CRU's work will never be understood or accepted by the "skeptics". Jones and the other CRU staff will continue to be vilified, threatened, and smeared by the "skeptics" - but that's what "skeptics" do best. Certainly they don't do science.

"So let me get this straight... the Lord Oxburgh analyzed 20 years of research for a earth that is supposedly 4.5 Billion years old (I do not believe this earth age, but I am certain his statistical assumptions do)."

Wrong, Mr. Amir (on every count, really, including the ludicrous creationist idea that the earth isn't really several billions years old). Oxburgh was *one* of a committee of scientists that analysed 20 years of papers authored by CRU researchers (which of course is just a fraction of all climate science papers published by all researchers in that time), with the intent of determining whether the scientific methods used therein were sound. That inquiry was in response to hysterical claims from people like you that the science is biased, based on hysterical overinterpretation of a selection of stolen emails, which contained exchanges by pissed-off scientists who had been harassed for years by self-appointed nonscientist 'auditors' with a a political agenda.

The inquiry finds that the methods, if not necessarily optimal, were good enough, and found no evidence of methodological bias. There is no reason to believe from these papers, that the science is not sound.

As for economic decisions being made on the basis of climate science, that was not the remit of the committee. However, it's foolish to argue that climate science is useless because it's making assertions about recent climate of an old planet. Greenhouse effects are real -- they are based on simple laws of physics. We are observing , using both direct atmospheric, surface, and ocean temperature measurements, as well as several proxy measures, a recent substantial global warming trend, and can trace its origins back in time to somewhat after the Industrial revolution. What we aren't finding are *natural* causes that are strong enough to cause this much warming in this amount of time.

Wrong, Mr. Bastiat. Only a handful of scientists work at CRU. The IPCC reports, on the other hand, are compiled from thousands of research papers by hundreds of scientists (as well as, in parts 2 and 3 of the report, 'grey area' publications) -- and reviewed for the IPCC in a collaborative effort by the global community of climate researchers. Dozens of scientists (including some from CRU, but hardly confined to them) were on the teams that wrote the actual texts of the report chapters.

You climate change deniers commenting here and all over the Internet really need to just face reality. There is no worldwide scientific conspiracy. Derridarider has it right: the bottom line of this report, and the science, is that AGW is real. Time to grow up and start doing something about it. Read the mostly excellent article on AGW that The Economist ran a few weeks back for starters.

There is a good reason for capital punishment. Deterrence. These scientists have discredited generations of scientists before them. It should take much to get them off the hook. Unfortunately the smell exuded by The Economist is that brought by the taint of money. It has lost credibility.

I wish the Economist would concentrate more on good climate science than bad climate politics. The least this debacle shows is that any sort of developing understanding of global climate requires a lot more good, open science, and that the CLU members are highly unlikely to provide any sort of useful contribution.

So let me get this straight... the Lord Oxburgh analyzed 20 years of research for a earth that is supposedly 4.5 Billion years old (I do not believe this earth age, but I am certain his statistical assumptions do).

This computes to making a climate decision based on 0.00000044% of the earth's history.

That is like predicting whether I am getting sick or getting better based on a change in my body temp that occurs over a 4.2-second period with no other supporting history (I am 30 years old).

Keep trying to convince us Economist... I read your articles as having the same authority as Reader's Digest. (lol - my apologies... I often laugh at my poor excuses for wit.)

You would think that befor the IPCC and its legion of Green fanatics would push for an entire reordering of the world economy that they would take a bit more cre with the facts, let alone the statisical analysis that was supposed to produce those facts.

Bastiat is correct in saying that the CRU scientists are often the same folks reviewing themselves as the IPCC.

Rather like old Soviet days: "In News (Izvetzia) there is no truth (Pravda); in truth there is no news."

Lord Oxburgh was a walking disaster at Shell and unfortunately his tenure was not brief enough.

Gee, the Economist has done a prety selective report of Othe Oxburgh panels' report, in a way that is favourable to the denialists. It is far too kind to Stephen McIntyre, for example. McIntyre's good faith and the credibility of his "findings" are both far from unquestioned.

The bottom line in Oxburgh's inquiry gets nowhere near enough prominence in this report. That is that the CRU's findings are robust - that is, AGW is clearly happening - and there was no dishonesty on their part but plenty on their critics' part.

I would like to see some genuine evidence either way on this whole climate nonsense but Ron Oxburgh's personal interests negate any conclusions that this group may come to. Simply not an independent group.

Freddy Bastiat makes an excellent point. In addition governments have taken the IPCC 'recommendations' and proposed measures which will be ruinously expensive - actually and in their ramifications - and which, in some cases, are impossible. Further, any honest criticism or attempt at discussion (Dr Hand) is howled down using slanderous comments and statements.

Yes this is a whitewash... "Lord Oxburgh is chair of the multinational Falck Renewables, a European leader with major windfarms in the UK, France, Spain and Italy, and he’s chair of the Carbon Capture and Storage Association, a lobby group which argues that carbon capture could become a $1-trillion industry by 2050."

The man has vested interests. It took me 2 inutes flat to find this out - why didn't the economist journalists manage that? Incompetence?

Although the panel said the CRU scientists were careful with caveats, people who subsequently made use of their results, including the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, sometimes oversimplified issues, underplaying possible errors.